The real cost of a political guest

MARTIN CULLEN’S recent use of an army helicopter to attend a private function raises the appropriateness of the taxpayer paying the costs of politicians attending private functions.

Mr Cullen isn’t alone as of course Mary Harney infamously used a marine patrol aircraft to attend the opening of an off-licence in Manorhamilton some years back.

If an organisation invites a sports star or other celebrity to cut a ribbon or give a speech, an appearance fee is expected to pay for the celebrity’s time and expenses, or alternatively a donation is made to the celebrity’s favourite charity. But if that celebrity is a politician, there is no question of a contribution being made to cover the politician’s time and expenses, nor does any charity benefit from the appearance.

Instead the taxpayer is expected to pay and anyone who complains is fobbed off with the excuse we should be honoured that our politicians are invited to attend private functions and it would be an insult if the politician didn’t attend.

Indeed because of the potential for insult for non-attendance, politicians are terrorised into attending as many private functions as possible lest a refusal would be seen as a snub and result in a loss of votes. And since organisations know the politician comes for free, there is no disincentive on their part in issuing invites by the bucket-load since they have the comfort of knowing they won’t be paying.

A valid argument is that politicians should not use their office personally to enrich themselves by charging appearance fees.

But why does that mean the taxpayer is left picking up the tab?

If an organisation desperately wants an appearance from a particular politician, then surely they should compensate the taxpayer for the cost of transporting and accommodating him or her.

Because the politician won’t be in his or her office during the function and the travel time, the taxpayer should be compensated for the lost hours of work.

And lastly, it is not unreasonable to expect an additional contribution to honour the taxpayer for the privilege of having the attendance of more senior politicians.

If organisations have to pay for political appearances, either the taxpayer will benefit from the extra income or alternatively invites will dry up and our politicians will be left with more time to run the country.

Either way the taxpayer wins, and isn’t that the most important thing?

Jason FitzHarris

Rivervalley

Swords

Co Dublin